CTNF 18/583,949 CTNF 98404 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections It is recommended that Applicant amend claim 6 as follows: in lines 2 and 3, “at a location on opposite side to the solid electrolyte layer” should read “at a location on an opposite side to the solid electrolyte layer” for proper grammar. Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Claim 6 recites “a rough surface is formed on an anode layer side surface of the anode current collector” (lines 5 and 6). Such “rough surface” will be interpreted as a surface with a surface roughness Rz ≥ 0.6 μm, as specially defined in ¶ 0051. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim(s ) 1, 4, and 5 is /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sa kamoto et al. (RU 2725177 C1, from 05/01/25 IDS; citation to English equivalent US 20200280102 A1, from 02/22/24 IDS) (Sakamoto) in view of Joo et al. (US 20150099185 A1) and Ueno et al. (WO 2021024876 A1, from 05/01/25 IDS; citations to English equivalent US 20220294007 A1, from 05/01/25 IDS) (Ueno). Re garding claims 1, 4, and 5 , Sakamoto discloses a vehicle (¶ 0003) comprising an all solid state battery (Title, exs.) comprising an electrode stacked body including a cathode layer, an anode layer, and a solid electrolyte layer placed between the cathode layer and the anode layer (e.g., fig. 1); and the electrode stacked body is confined under confining pressure of, e.g., 0.08 MPa (Ex. 1, Table 1), falling within 0–2 MPa. Sakamoto further discloses that the anode layer may include an active material of Si (¶ 0167) but fails to explicitly disclose an anode active material with a volume expansion rate due to charge of 105% or more. Joo teaches nanofibers for battery negative electrode active material (Abstract, 0014), where the nanofibers may be Si-based (¶ 0014, 0281). Joo recognizes that in conventional anodes, Si’s volume contraction/expansion from (dis)charging leads to pulverization, breaking, and degradation, but this nanofibrous material avoids these issues, allowing the active material to expand its volume at least 150% while yielding high energy density and stability (¶ 0118). Sakamoto and Joo are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery anode active material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Joo’s Si nanofibers as Sakamoto’s anode active material—such that the active material would exhibit a volume-expansion rate due to charge of ≥ 150%, satisfying ≥ 105%— with a reasonable expectation of yielding high energy density and stability with accommodated volume expansion, as taught by Joo. Sakamoto further discloses that the solid electrolyte layer includes a solid electrolyte (e.g., sulfide, ¶ 0156; see also Ex. 1, ¶ 0182) and a binder (¶ 0162; see also butadiene rubber in ¶ 0182) but, in being unconcerned with the binder’s concentration, fails to explicitly disclose that a ratio of the binder in the solid electrolyte layer is 20–30 volume%. Ueno, in teaching a solid battery (Title), teaches incorporating the binder at 0.1–30 vol% of the solid electrolyte layer (¶ 0074). Ueno is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely solid batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Sakamoto's binder must necessarily be incorporated into the solid electrolyte layer with some concentration, and, as demonstrated by Ueno, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to employ a concentration of, e.g., 0.1–30 vol% as an appropriate concentration. More importantly, Ueno teaches that the binder maintains favorable joining within the solid electrolyte of the solid electrolyte layer, prevents cracking within the solid electrolyte, and minimizes a decrease in ion conductivity and an increase in grain-boundary resistance (¶ 0074). The skilled artisan, meanwhile, would appreciate that Sakamoto’s solid electrolyte provides ion conductivity. To balance proper ion conductivity with favorable joining, prevented cracking, and minimalized decreases in ion conductivity and increases in grain-boundary resistance, it would have been obvious to arrive at the instant 20–30 vol% by routinely optimizing the binder’s vol%, including within Ueno’s overlap (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)). It is submitted that the above disclosure further reads on the following: (claim 4) wherein the anode active material is a Si-based active material (Sakamoto, ¶ 0167); (claim 5) wherein the solid electrolyte is a sulfide solid electrolyte (Sakamoto, ¶ 0156, 0182) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim(s ) 2 is /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sa kamoto et al. (RU 2725177 C1; citation to English equivalent US 20200280102 A1) (Sakamoto) in view of Joo et al. (US 20150099185 A1) and Ueno et al. (WO 2021024876 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20220294007 A1) (Ueno), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Shishihara et al. (JP 2015028854 A, with machine translation from 08/07/25 IDS) (Shishihara) or Matsuyama et al. (JP 2017168387 A, with machine translation from 05/01/25 IDS) (Matsuyama). Re garding claim 2 , modified Sakamoto discloses the all solid state battery according to claim 1. As seen in instant Table 1, the elastic modulus inversely varies with binder content at a given confining pressure. Importantly, then, as discussed above, to balance the above considerations such as cracking and ion conductivity, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited elastic modulus by routinely optimizing the binder content and, thus, necessarily controlling the elastic modulus (MPEP 2144.05 (II)). Nonetheless, Shishihara, in teaching a solid battery with a sulfide electrolyte layer between the electrodes (Abstract), teaches that it is desirable that the sulfide electrolyte membrane is sufficiently soft, displaying a low Young’s modulus—which reasonably constitutes a “bending” elastic modulus because the elastic modulus reflects a material’s resistance to elastic deformation and, thus, flexibility—of preferably 0.08–20 GPa (¶ 0027, 0028). Shishihara is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely solid batteries with sulfide electrolytes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Sakamoto's sulfide electrolyte layer must necessarily be incorporated with some degree of elasticity/rigidity, and, as demonstrated by Shishihara, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to employ a Young’s modulus/bending elastic modulus of 0.08–20 GPa with the reasonable expectation of forming a successful sulfide electrolyte and battery. This range overlaps the recited ≤ 5.0 GPa such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful sulfide electrolyte with suitable physical properties (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). More importantly, though, the skilled artisan would recognize that a compromise necessarily exists in the elastic modulus, where a higher modulus yields a more rigid or deformation-resistant material, while a lower modulus yields a more flexible or resilient material. To balance these effects, then, it would have been further obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the elastic modulus (MPEP 2144.05 (II)). Additionally or alternatively, Matsuyama, in teaching a solid electrolyte sheet for a solid battery (¶ 0001), where the electrolyte is preferably sulfide-based (¶ 0021), teaches that the sheet’s Young’s modulus is preferably 1.0 GPa to 1.0 TPa (¶ 0038, 0039). Matsuyama teaches that setting the modulus to the lower limit improves the layer’s strength and prevents cracking from electrode volume change during (dis)charge, while setting the modulus no higher than the upper limit improves the layer’s stress relaxation to further prevent cracking and improve battery characteristics (¶ 0039). Matsuyama is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely sulfide electrolytes for solid batteries. To balance improved strength with improved stress relaxation to prevent cracking, it would have been further obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the solid electrolyte layer’s Young’s/bending modulus, including within Matsuyama’s broader range or Shishihara’s narrower, encompassed range and, thus, within the overlap, as taught by Matsuyama (MPEP 2144.05 (II)) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim(s) 3 is/a re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saka moto et al. (RU 2725177 C1; citation to English equivalent US 20200280102 A1) (Sakamoto) in view of Joo et al. (US 20150099185 A1) and either Shishihara et al. (JP 2015028854 A) (Shishihara) or Matsuyama et al. (JP 2017168387 A) (Matsuyama). Rega rding claim 3 , Sakamoto discloses a vehicle (¶ 0003) comprising an all solid state battery (Title, exs.) comprising an electrode stacked body including a cathode layer, an anode layer, and a solid electrolyte layer placed between the cathode layer and the anode layer (e.g., fig. 1); and the electrode stacked body is confined under confining pressure of, e.g., 0.08 MPa (Ex. 1, Table 1), falling within 0–2 MPa. Sakamoto further discloses that the anode layer may include an active material of Si (¶ 0167) but fails to explicitly disclose an anode active material with a volume expansion rate due to charge of 105% or more. Joo teaches nanofibers for battery negative electrode active material (Abstract, 0014), where the nanofibers may be Si-based (¶ 0014, 0281). Joo recognizes that in conventional anodes, Si’s volume contraction/expansion from (dis)charging leads to pulverization, breaking, and degradation, but this nanofibrous material avoids these issues, allowing the active material to expand its volume at least 150% while yielding high energy density and stability (¶ 0118). Sakamoto and Joo are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery anode active material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Joo’s Si nanofibers as Sakamoto’s anode active material—such that the active material would exhibit a volume-expansion rate due to charge of ≥ 150%, satisfying ≥ 105%—with a reasonable expectation of yielding high energy density and stability with accommodated volume expansion, as taught by Joo. Sakamoto further discloses that the solid electrolyte layer includes a solid electrolyte (e.g., sulfide, ¶ 0156; see also Ex. 1, ¶ 0182) and a binder (¶ 0162; see also butadiene rubber in ¶ 0182). However, in appearing unconcerned with the solid electrolyte layer’s mechanical properties, Sakamoto fails to explicitly disclose that a bending elastic modulus in the solid electrolyte layer is 5.0 GPa or less. Shishihara, in teaching a solid battery with a sulfide electrolyte layer between the electrodes (Abstract), teaches that it is desirable that the sulfide electrolyte membrane is sufficiently soft, displaying a low Young’s modulus—which reasonably constitutes a “bending” elastic modulus because the elastic modulus reflects a material’s resistance to elastic deformation and, thus, flexibility—of preferably 0.08–20 GPa (¶ 0027, 0028). Shishihara is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely solid batteries with sulfide electrolytes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Sakamoto's sulfide electrolyte layer must necessarily be incorporated with some degree of elasticity/rigidity, and, as demonstrated by Shishihara, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to employ a Young’s modulus/bending elastic modulus of 0.08–20 GPa with the reasonable expectation of forming a successful sulfide electrolyte and battery. Moreover, this range overlaps the recited ≤ 5.0 GPa such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful sulfide electrolyte with suitable physical properties (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). More importantly, though, the skilled artisan would recognize that a compromise necessarily exists in the elastic modulus, where a higher modulus yields a more rigid or deformation-resistant material, while a lower modulus yields a more flexible or resilient material. To balance these effects, then, it would have been further obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the elastic modulus (MPEP 2144.05 (II)). Additionally or alternatively, Matsuyama, in teaching a solid electrolyte sheet for a solid battery (¶ 0001), where the electrolyte is preferably sulfide-based (¶ 0021), teaches that the sheet’s Young’s modulus is preferably 1.0 GPa to 1.0 TPa (¶ 0038, 0039). Matsuyama teaches that setting the modulus to the lower limit improves the layer’s strength and prevents cracking from electrode volume change during (dis)charge, while setting the modulus no higher than the upper limit improves the layer’s stress relaxation to further prevent cracking and improve battery characteristics (¶ 0039). Matsuyama is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely sulfide electrolytes for solid batteries. To balance improved strength with improved stress relaxation to prevent cracking, it would have been further obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the solid electrolyte layer’s Young’s/bending modulus, including within Matsuyama’s broader range or Shishihara’s narrower, encompassed range and, thus, within the overlap, as taught by Matsuyama (MPEP 2144.05 (II)) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim(s) 6 i s/ar e rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakam oto et al. (RU 2725177 C1; citation to English equivalent US 20200280102 A1) (Sakamoto) in view of Joo et al. (US 20150099185 A1) and Ueno et al. (WO 2021024876 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20220294007 A1) (Ueno), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hirose et al. (US 20090035651 A1, from 05/01/25 IDS) (Hirose). Regar ding claim 6 , modified Sakamoto discloses the all solid state battery according to claim 1, wherein the electrode stacked body includes an anode current collector at a location on [an] opposite side to the solid electrolyte layer, with respect to the anode layer (e.g., first collector 1a of Sakamoto’s fig. 1; see also Sakamoto’s ¶ 0171). Sakamoto further bonds the anode current collector to anode layer 1b via adhesive (¶ 0039) and, thus, clearly desires sufficient adhesion between these layers but fails to explicitly disclose a rough surface—i.e., surface roughness Rz of ≥ 0.6 μm—formed on an anode layer side surface of the anode current collector. Hirose, in teaching a battery anode (Title), teaches roughening the anode collector’s surface to improve adhesion between the collector and active material layer (¶ 0048)—and, thus, the roughened surface is the anode-layer-side surface. Hirose teaches a roughness Rz of ≥ 1.5 μm for sufficient adhesion (¶ 0049). Hirose is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery anodes. Alternatively, Hirose is analogous because they are reasonably pertinent to a problem the inventor would have faced, namely increasing adhesion between the current collector and anode (as in spec.’s ¶ 0051). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to roughen Sakamoto’s anode collector’s anode-layer-side surface to an Rz of ≥ 1.5 μm—falling within ≥ 0.6 μm—with the reasonable expectation of desirably improving adhesion between the collector and anode layer, as taught by Hirose. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim(s) 1–6 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 of copending Application 17/892714 (reference application, published as US 20230075357 A1) in view of Sakamoto et al. (RU 2725177 C1; citation to English equivalent US 20200280102 A1) (Sakamoto). Ref. claim 1 includes or encompasses all limitations of instant claims 1–6 besides reciting a vehicle comprising the battery. Sakamoto teaches a substantially similar all-solid battery (Abstract), teaching that such batteries are well known to be applied as power sources for automobiles (¶ 0003). The ref. and Sakamoto are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely all-solid batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely incorporate the ref.’s battery into a vehicle with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successfully powered vehicle, as taught by Sakamoto. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not been patented. Conclusion 07-96 The cited art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20190190064 A1 and US 20200266448 A1 each discloses an all-solid battery with examples confined at ≤ 2.0 MPa. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 /JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 4/29/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/583,949 Page 2 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/583,949 Page 3 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/583,949 Page 4 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/583,949 Page 5 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/583,949 Page 6 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/583,949 Page 7 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/583,949 Page 8 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/583,949 Page 9 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/583,949 Page 10 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/583,949 Page 11 Art Unit: 1751
Prosecution Insights